Robert James Murphy v. State of North Carolina

25 F.3d 1040, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20804, 1994 WL 197091
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 18, 1994
Docket94-6015
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 F.3d 1040 (Robert James Murphy v. State of North Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert James Murphy v. State of North Carolina, 25 F.3d 1040, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20804, 1994 WL 197091 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

25 F.3d 1040
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Robert James MURPHY, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
STATE of North Carolina, Respondent Appellee.

No. 94-6015.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 1994.
Decided: May 18, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-93-218)

Robert James Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.

M.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his motion for removal of his state proceedings to federal court. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* Murphy v. North Carolina, No. CR-93-218 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

*

To the extent that the action could be construed as a pretrial habeas petition, it was properly dismissed because Appellant has not exhausted his state remedies. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973); Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437 (3d Cir.1975)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stutler v. Tate
N.D. West Virginia, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 F.3d 1040, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20804, 1994 WL 197091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-james-murphy-v-state-of-north-carolina-ca4-1994.